Archive for fairness

Citizens United Decision Makes Prostitution Legal According To Expert Testifying To Senate

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Prostitute Customer

Citizens United. Ah, what a slippery slope the Supreme Court hath delivered. The 5-4 decision upheld that unlimited business money donations are merely expressions of first amendment rights, commonly known as our freedom of speech. As such, they cannot be regulated. So, that's the way you SCOTUS jurists want to play the game.

What hell hath you wrought, you nine black-robed crusaders?

A constitutional law professor, Jamie Raskin was called by the Senate to come in and speak about his field of expertise and how the first amendment might/should/could be interpreted. Though the senators thought they were going to hear how the Citizens United decision would affect money in political campaigns, they also got some news which was surprising -- and in a great way for Sen. David Vitter (R-La.)

Raw Story:

An American law professor told senators on Tuesday that outlawing prostitution was a violation of the First Amendment if spending money was a form of free speech.

“Your other point though about money not equaling speech is a critical point for people to understand,” American University professor Jamie Raskin said during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. “There are lots of forms of purchase and exchange that we criminalize, for example, buying sex. We don’t say if someone wants to purchase the services of a prostitute, well that is just an expression of their speech.”

Hear the short testimony for yourself. It's very interesting  and maybe has some valid points that those justices, voting for the majority in the Citizens United, case should have thought about BEFORE they issued their politically-motivated decision.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Tucker Carlson Claims Underage Student Rape Depends On Child's Sex

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Sexy Teacher

Okay, I'm a guy. And as a teen, I spent many an hour thinking about sex. A lot of virgins do. And I've heard from many guys my age at that time how much they wished they could experience the pleasures of a woman's company -- nice way of saying going all the way. Actually that's a nice way of saying f**king a hot chick.  We wanted our "cherry" popped, so to speak.

Now one of the "holy grails" of the experience was to"do it" with a woman with curves. To enjoy the anticipated warmth of an ample pair of well-endowed breasts was something that was only enhanced by pictures we got from stolen copies of Playboy or Penthouse. We knew our time would ultimately come, but until then, we just had our imaginations and our right hand to keep us company. And truthfully, that was much safer than the alternative, actually having an encounter.

Every school had one, or if you were lucky, a few young, attractive teachers that were, for lack of a better word, hot. The wet dream fantasy fodder. But in  most cases, the teacher wasn't going to be interested in some pimply faced 15 or 16 year old with raging hormones and not much more to back it up. On that rare occasion you'd hear rumors that some kid "got some" from an older woman, but the truth is it was usually rumors spread to make the kid's popularity rise, if not another part of their anatomy. It was nothing more than fantasy fulfillment -- unless, in those rarest of rare circumstances, "it" happened. Then, as the law likes to call it, it was rape.

Now truthfully, if it was a male teacher and a female student, it was called rape. If it was a female teacher and a male student, it was generally called contributing to the delinquency of a minor. But rape is rape unless you're one of those shallow thinkers like Fox's own, Tucker Carlson, the sexually perverse boy who never grew up. He just got older, but never matured.

tucker carlson

Reported on Raw Story:

Carlson, who has previously  stated that sexual situations between male students with teachers would be, in the student’s mind, “the greatest thing that ever happened,”  said the notion of statutory rape  with a male student defied “common sense.”

Just recently he went on Fox News, his home, and told a panel of female coworkers that not only was a 16 year old boy, who was "enticed" into having sex 30 times in a 6 week span with his young, married female teacher NOT RAPE, but that it was wrong of the boy to report it. Carlson obviously lives in the Mad Hatter world of fantasy. Tucker the F**ker says the real victim of this "escapade" was the female teacher, not the boy student because he got the better of the deal. He got his cherry popped with a hottie.

Outrageous? You bet. But don't take my word for it. Here's Tucker Carlson, twisted fool. His totally sexist view is a boy "getting some" isn't a crime because there's no victim here. And if there is victim here, it's the poor female teacher because she got squealed on.

I wonder if Tucker would feel if when he was 16 he had a teacher who was a male hunk. Let's say this hottie teacher decided to bust Carlson's effeminate ass, taking Carlson's, cherry after school 30 times over a six week period. Should he blame Tucker because maybe it's something he fantasized over? I'm not saying Tucker has those thoughts. I'm just saying, "what if?" Rape is rape. It's about time Carlson took some responsibility for what he says to the public.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Texas GOP Publicly Announces It's Anti-Gay

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

gay

Image: RawStory/Shutterstock


Well, considering it's Texas, what can you expect? Here's what the Texas Republican Party has in their platform this year AGAIN, as reported by the Raw Story:

The party platform states: “The practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.”

Homophobia is the second most exported product in Texas behind oil. Ignorance is a close third. Obviously there are some odd fellow bookends to the Lone Star State's exports.

But what should be even more surprising, is the group called the Log Cabin Republicans. If you don't know who they are,  here's the statement from their own Log Cabin Republicans website:

Log Cabin Republicans is the nation’s largest Republican organization dedicated to representing gay and lesbian conservatives and allies.

It's hard to believe that GOP actually has members whose party legislates consistently against them. I guess that would make them the masochistic wing of the Republican party.

Their existence is somewhat of an oxymoron, Republican and LGBT. Just the opposite of Groucho Marx's famous quip, "I would never want to be a member of any group that would have me," these Log Cabin folks just don't seem to get it. The GOP is saying, in so many words, "Go Away. We don't want you!"

As if they needed further proof they're not accepted by the Republicans, especially in Texas, the Log Cabin group recently petitioned to have two booths at the state's Republican party convention next week. Their request was denied.

Steve Munisteri, chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, told Texas Public Radio that he doesn't want any groups challenging the party’s platform at the upcoming convention.

Doesn't this make you wonder, who is thicker? The Texas Republican Party (for their non-inclusion practices) or the Log Cabin Republicans who want to join a club that doesn't want them.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

I Take My Justice With A Slap And A Racial Slur

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

RacistMississippiJudgew257h244

There's a good chance that you or someone you know will at a point in their life be called in front of a judge to resolve some issue. Maybe it's a renter/landlord dispute, or perhaps it's a speeding ticket. Maybe it'll even be something more substantial, but the odds are it's going to happen sometime.

What we all hope though is that justice is meted out fairly and with no prejudice.

Well, if you live in Mississippi, don't be so sure. Here's a shocking and sobering report about Madison County Justice Court Judge Bill Weisenberger, who is white.  Talking Points Memo:

A Mississippi judge [Weisengerger] allegedly slapped a young mentally disabled black man [Eric Rivers] earlier this month at a flea market and yelled "run, n----, run," the Jackson Clarion-Ledger reported Sunday.

An apparent witness, Tammy Westbrook, told the newspaper Rivers was offering to help flea market vendors unload their goods when Weisenberger slapped him twice, then yelled "run, n----, run" as he fled. Westbrook and her sister, a vendor at the flea market, recalled that they thought Weisenberger was a law enforcement officer because he was wearing a security guard's uniform.

So this is the man who's pounding his gavel and dispatching justice. In a state with a Black population of nearly 40%, there's a chance this judge has issued quite a few punishments on minorities. Is there a chance he's only a bigot displaying racial hatred and animus when he's not wearing his robes?

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

The GOP's Women's Offensive Offensive (NSFW)

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

War on Women

So the GOP feels that they need help connecting with women. They're not alone. So do women -- and in a very big way.

HuffPo:

A majority of Americans -- especially female ones -- think the Republican Party is out of touch with women, according to a poll released Friday by CNN/ORC.

Fifty-five percent of Americans, including 59 percent of women, say the GOP generally does not understand the problems and concerns of women.

That amazing set of numbers should send off some alarm bells. You bet. The RNC Chairman Reince Preibus, has heard them, loud and clear. He's been organizing sensitivity training for his 92% male GOP national office holders -- of course this is all voluntary. It's only if they need it. And if you ask any Republican in either house of congress, they don't need it. They already are sensitive to women's issues. Funny how the Republican track record doesn't quite reflect that though. 

Can't you tell? Maybe looking at this chart will prove that point -- not!

Total Senate
100 (53D, 45R, 2I)
Women
20 (16D, 4R)
Total House
435 (201D, 234R)
Women
 78 (59D, 19R), plus 3 (3D) Delegates

The Democrats have three times more female representatives in the House and four times as many in the Senate. If women are more than half the total US population, isn't it clear there's a political disconnect between parties?

Here are some of the reasons women voters are staying away from the misogynistparty. The GOP has stopped the Paycheck Fairness Act which would mandate that women and men doing the same job and with the same seniority get paid the same amount.

The GOP has pushed through a bill that makes it a fire-able offence to inquire or discuss one's pay rate at work. In other words, they don't want workers to know what their equals are getting so they can report underpayments or make inquiries about their remuneration.

Oh, and how about the GOP "inserting" themselves between female patients and their doctors, forcing transvaginal ultrasounds, unnecessary procedures relating to abortion, and closing down or making access to abortion clinics nearly impossible in those states that still have any?

Let's not forget that the Republicans in the House are against raising the minimum wage. That's actually another gender issue as women are 47% more likely to hold a job that pays minimum wage than men according to The Week.com.

Did I forget the voting restrictions they're instituting in Republican-led states now requiring two forms of ID? Most women in this country change their last names to their husband's when they marry. Many times this results in a birth certificate with one last name, and a driver's license with another. Because of this discrepancy, despite having been allowed to vote for 20 or 30 years at the same polling site, women must now file a conditional ballot -- oftentimes not even counted after the polls close. Don't believe me? Ask Wendy Davis, a high profile, sitting Texas state senator who had to file a provisional ballot and face a possible recall to the polls two days later to prove she's really who she says she is.

The GOP has a funny way to entice female voters. It's like spousal abuse. They beat the shit out of them, treat them worse than dogs, then threaten to retaliate against them if they don't follow their orders. The fact that they have any female constituency in the Elephant Party is quite amazing. When you have to offer sensitivity lessons to your elected membership, you're definitely admitting you're doing something wrong.

Look at what the GOP's other majordomo has to say about the connection gap between his party and women:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in December that his fellow Republicans were making progress, but that "there are a lot more females in the Democratic caucus than there are in the Republican conference. And some of our members just aren't as sensitive as they ought to be."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

How Out Of Step Is The GOP On Economic Equality?

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

OutOfStepw368h244

Evidently, according to a recent Pew Poll, the choice of whether you're rich or not is up to you. Yes, it's a choice according to the GOP. And who better to understand business and the economy than the Grand Old Party? Economics and defense are considered to be their hallmark strengths.

So, let's see whether we're rich or poor, lavishing in riches or struggling in destitution is a choice. (A hint: being poor to a Republican is like being gay to Ellen DeGeneres -- it's a choice.)

Here's some number collection from Pew Research (Jan 15-19, 2014):

WHICH HAS MORE TO DO WITH WHY A PERSON IS RICH:

Total     Rep.    Dem.   Ind.

Works harder than others:

 38%      57%     27%    37%

He/She has more advantages:

Total     Rep.    Dem.   Ind.

51%       32%     63%    52%

WHICH IS MORE TO BLAME FOR BEING POOR:

Total      Rep.   Dem.   Ind.

Lack of Effort:

35%      51%     29%     33%

Circumstances beyond control:

Total     Rep.    Dem.   Ind.

50%     32%     63%     51%

FAIR ECONOMIC SYSTEM IN AMERICA:

Total     Rep.    Dem.   Ind.

Fair:

36%      53%     25%    35%

Favors wealthy:

60%     42%      75%    60%

Can get ahead if work hard:

60%     76%      49%    59%

Hard Work no guarantee of success:

38%      20%     48%    39%

There you have the numbers. What stands out is that the Republicans think it's lack of initiative that causes poverty and low wages. Tell that to the full-time workers who struggle with minimum wage -- an issue the Republicans are reluctant to bring to a vote to raise. Our problems are jobs. More specifically good paying jobs. But to put that movement on the right path, we need to start by raising the minimum wage to make it a livable wage. That's something the Republicans just don't get.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Only Today, 2014, Has A Federal Court Ruled To Let LGBT Jurors Hear Trials

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

LGBTJuryw354h244

What's next for the right-wing conservatives to try in making this country fair for only white, Christian, and homophobic citizens? Why the justice system, of course. If you can't get a law passed banning anything that prohibits them from excluding balanced, fair or common sense thinking in the jury room, these narrow-minded conservatives may face extinction. And they're not going down without a fight.

Here's the latest from the LA TIMES:

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court became the first in the nation to rule that prospective jurors may not be excluded because of their sexual orientation, a decision that expands juror protections beyond race and gender and provides legal ammunition to challenge laws that limit gay rights.

The sweeping, unanimous decision Tuesday by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a mixed jury verdict in an antitrust case involving an AIDS drug. The 9th Circuit said the case would have to be retried because an obviously gay juror was unjustifiably excluded from the jury.

Truthfully, I had never heard of the jury system excluding people for sexual orientation, but evidently I was just unaware. Here we are in 2014 and someone's sexual direction could be used against them in a court of law. I know accused criminals have the right to remain silent, but evidently those determining their guilt were supposed to exclude themselves if the crime was federal.

But really there's two issues that I've put in bold print that I find nothing short of amazing. To start with, this case quoted above is the FIRST in the nation to make this discriminatory ruling out of bounds. Really? Only now?

And the second issue is the more important one. "...an obviously gay juror" -- what's an obviously gay juror? Did he/she wear make-up? Did they hit on the same-sex foreman? Did they have a membership card they were flaunting in the RuPaul fan club? What makes someone "obviously gay?"

That's the amazing part of this outrageous but eye-opening story. Until now, if someone looks differently than another person and fits a stereotypical image, they can be excluded from a jury? And according to the article, part of which is quoted below, they still can be.

Lady Justice

I thought justice was blind. Look at Lady Justice balancing her scales. Did you notice something else about her? She's blindfolded. There's a reason for that.

Thankfully the 9th federal circuit court of  appeals court made this first in the nation, unanimous finding. But it only deals with a small portion of this country. It's not national.

Tuesday's landmark ruling extended the restriction to federal courts in California and courts in eight other Western states, lawyers said.

Now let's wake up the rest of the nation. Justice is seriously being challenged.

This particular case had to do with an antitrust lawsuit involving an AIDS drug. For that reason alone, the "obviously gay" juror was dismissed. We allow doctors to sit as jurors on medical trials. We allow lawyers to sit on juries despite perhaps having knowledge not admissible to lay jurors. Why can't we have LGBT jurors sitting in on any case of any origin in any area, AIDS related or not? Aren't they people too?

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare